The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Smoking Among Vulnerable Populations.

AIM: While accumulating evidence suggests that people modified their smoking during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it remains unclear whether those most at risk for tobacco-related health disparities did so. The current study examined changes in smoking among several vulnerable smoker populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed in 2020 to 709 adults with socioeconomic disadvantage, affective disorders, or opioid use disorder who participated in a previous study investigating the effects of very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes on smoking. Current smoking status and rate, and adoption of protective health behaviors in response to the pandemic (eg social distancing, mask wearing) were examined. RESULTS: Among 332 survey respondents (46.8% response rate), 84.6% were current smokers. Repeated measures ANOVA showed that current cigarettes/day (CPD) was higher during COVID than pre-COVID (12.9 ± 1.0 versus 11.6 ± 1.0; p < .001). Most respondents had adopted protective health behaviors to prevent infection (>79% for all behaviors). More than half indicated that they were still leaving their homes specifically to buy cigarettes (64.6%) and were buying more packs per visit to the store (54.5%) than pre-COVID. Individuals unemployed at the time of the survey experienced greater increases in CPD (from 11.4 ± 1.4 to 13.3 ± 1.4, p = .024) as did those with higher levels of anxiety (from 11.5 ± 1.1 to 13.6 ± 1.1, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in this sample of adults from vulnerable populations, even while most adopted protective health measures to prevent infection. Unemployment and anxiety might identify those at greatest risk for increases in tobacco use. IMPLICATIONS: Individuals from populations especially vulnerable to smoking might be at risk for greater harm from cigarette smoking during times of pandemic-related stress. Public health interventions are warranted to ameliorate increases in smoking among these populations. Special attention should be paid to those experiencing unemployment and high anxiety.

Randomized Controlled Trial Examining the Efficacy of Adding Financial Incentives to Best practices for Smoking Cessation Among pregnant and Newly postpartum Women.

We report results from a single-blinded randomized controlled trial examining financial incentives for smoking cessation among 249 pregnant and newly postpartum women. Participants included 169 women assigned to best practices (BP) or BP plus financial incentives (BP + FI) for smoking cessation available through 12-weeks postpartum. A third condition included 80 never-smokers (NS) sociodemographically-matched to women who smoked. Trial setting was Burlington, Vermont, USA, January, 2014 through January, 2020. Outcomes included 7-day point-prevalence abstinence antepartum and postpartum, and birth and other infant outcomes during 1st year of life. Reliability and external validity of results were assessed using pooled results from the current and four prior controlled trials coupled with data on maternal-smoking status and birth outcomes for all 2019 singleton live births in Vermont. Compared to BP, BP + FI significantly increased abstinence early- (AOR = 9.97; 95%CI, 3.32-29.93) and late-pregnancy (primary outcome, AOR = 5.61; 95%CI, 2.37-13.28) and through 12-weeks postpartum (AOR = 2.46; CI,1.05-5.75) although not 24- (AOR = 1.31; CI,0.54-3.17) or 48-weeks postpartum (AOR = 1.33; CI,0.55-3.25). There was a significant effect of trial condition on small-for-gestational-age (SGA) deliveries (χ2 [2] = 9.01, P = .01), with percent SGA deliveries (+SEM) greatest in BP, intermediate in BP + FI, and lowest in NS (17.65 + 4.13, 10.81 + 3.61, and 2.53 + 1.77, respectively). Reliability analyses supported the efficacy of financial incentives for increasing abstinence antepartum and postpartum and decreasing SGA deliveries; external-validity analyses supported relationships between antepartum cessation and SGA risk. Adding financial incentives to Best Practice increases smoking cessation among antepartum and postpartum women and improves other maternal-infant outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02210832.

Cumulative vulnerabilities as a potential moderator of response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes.

Risk for smoking increases in a summative manner corresponding to the number of co-occurring vulnerabilities present (cumulative vulnerability). We examined whether cumulative vulnerabilities moderate response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes in a secondary analysis of results from 775 participants in three 12-week randomized clinical trials examining research cigarettes varying in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco). Participants were categorized as having 0-1, 2-3, or ≥ 4 cumulative vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities included: rural residence, current substance use disorder, current affective disorder, low educational attainment, poverty, unemployment, physical disability. The primary outcome was total cigarettes per day (CPD) during Week 12; secondary outcomes included CPD across weeks, toxin exposure, dependence severity, craving/withdrawal (17 dependent measures). Results were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of covariance and growth-curve modeling. Total CPD during Week 12 increased as cumulative-vulnerability increased (P = 0.004), and decreased as nicotine content decreased (P < 0.001), with no significant interaction of cumulative vulnerability and dose (P = 0.67). Effects on other outcomes generally followed that same pattern. The only exception across the other outcomes was on Questionnaire-on-Smoking-Urges Factor-2 ratings for usual-brand cigarettes where cumulative vulnerability, dose, and time interacted (P = 0.007), with craving at the 0.4 and 2.4 mg/g doses decreasing over time, but inconsistently across vulnerability categories. Overall, we saw little evidence that cumulative vulnerabilities moderate response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes suggesting that a policy reducing nicotine content in cigarettes to minimally addictive levels could benefit even highly vulnerable smokers including those residing in rural or other regions with overrepresentation of co-occurring vulnerabilities. Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT02232737, NCT02250664, NCT02250534.

Changes in Cigarette Consumption With Reduced Nicotine Content Cigarettes Among Smokers With Psychiatric Conditions or Socioeconomic Disadvantage: 3 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: This study is part of a programmatic effort evaluating the effects of reducing nicotine content of cigarettes to minimally addictive levels. Objective: To examine whether very low-nicotine-content (VLNC) cigarettes decrease smoking rates and dependence severity among smokers with psychiatric disorders or socioeconomic disadvantage. Design, Setting, and Participants: These 3 randomized clinical trials were performed at the University of Vermont, Brown University, and Johns Hopkins University between October 2016 and September 2019. Participants received 12 weeks of exposure to study cigarettes with nicotine content ranging from levels representative of commercial cigarettes (15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco) to less than a hypothesized addiction threshold (2.4 mg/g and 0.4 mg/g). Daily smokers from 3 at-risk populations participated: individuals with affective disorders, exemplifying smokers with mental illness; individuals with opioid use disorder, exemplifying smokers with substance use disorders; and women with high school educations or less, exemplifying smokers with socioeconomic disadvantage. Data were analyzed from September 2019 to July 2020. Interventions: Random assignment to 1 of 3 study cigarettes provided weekly at no cost for 12 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was between-group differences in mean total cigarettes smoked daily (CPD) during week 12; secondary outcomes included CPD for study and nonstudy cigarettes and dependence severity across weeks analyzed using analysis of covariance, random coefficients growth modeling, or repeated measures analysis of variance. Results: A total of 775 participants were included (mean [SD] age, 35.59 [11.05] years; 551 [71.10%] women [owing to 1 population being exclusively women]); participants smoked a mean (SD) of 17.79 (9.18) CPD at study intake. A total of 286 participants were randomized to 0.4 mg/g, 235 participants were randomized to 2.4 mg/g, and 254 participants were randomized to 15.8 mg/g. Participants randomized to VLNC cigarettes had decreased mean [SEM] total CPD during week 12 across populations (Cohen d = 0.61; P < .001). At week 12, mean (SEM) CPD decreased to 17.96 (0.98) CPD in the 0.4 mg/g group and to 19.53 (1.07) CPD in the 2.4 mg/g group, both of which were significantly different from the 15.8 mg/g group (25.08 [1.08] CPD at week 12) but not each other (0.4 mg/g adjusted mean difference: -7.54 [95%CI, -9.51 to -5.57]; 2.4 mg/g adjusted mean difference: -5.34 [95% CI, 7.41 to -3.26]). Several secondary outcomes differed across populations randomized to VLNCs, including mean total CPD across weeks, with linear trends lower in participants receiving 0.4 mg/g (-0.28 [95%CI, -0.39 to -0.18]; P < .001) and 2.4 mg/g (-0.13 [95%CI, -0.25 to -0.01]; P < .001) doses compared with those receiving the 15.8 mg/g dose (0.30 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.41]). Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence mean total scores were significantly lower in participants who received VLNCs (Cohen d = 0.12; P < .001), with those who received the 0.4 mg/g dose (mean [SD] score, 3.99 [0.06]; P < .001 vs 15.8 mg/g) or 2.4 mg/g dose (mean [SD] score, 4.07 [0.06]; P = .01 vs 15.8 mg/g) differing from those who received the 15.8 mg/g dose (mean [SD] score, 4.31 [0.06]) but not from each other. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings demonstrate that decreasing the nicotine content of cigarettes to very low levels reduced smoking rate and nicotine-dependence severity in these high-risk populations, effects that may facilitate successful cessation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02232737, NCT02250664, NCT02250534.

Relating individual differences in nicotine dependence severity to underpinning motivational and pharmacological processes among smokers from vulnerable populations.

We examined whether elucidating underpinning smoking motivation and related pharmacological processes enhances understanding of nicotine dependence among smokers from vulnerable populations. Data were obtained between Oct, 2016 and Sept, 2019 from 745 adult smokers with co-morbid psychiatric conditions or socioeconomic disadvantage at University of Vermont, Brown University, Johns Hopkins University. Smoking motivation was assessed using the Cigarette Purchase Task (CPT), a behavioral-economic task that models the relative reinforcing value of smoking under varying monetary constraint. Dependence severity was measured using the Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI), Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence total scores (FTND), and FTND total scores minus items 1 and 4 (FTND2,3,5,6). We also assessed associations between dependence severity and smoking motivation with nicotine levels and metabolism rate. Principal Component Analysis was used to examine the latent structure of the conventional five CPT indices; bivariate and multivariable modeling was used to test associations. Factor analysis resulted in a two-factor solution, Amplitude (demand unconstrained by price) and Persistence (price sensitivity). CPT latent factors were associated with each dependence-severity measure (ps ≤ 0.0001), with associations stronger for Amplitude than Persistence across each, especially HSI which was exclusively associated with Amplitude. Amplitude and each dependence measure were associated with nicotine intake (ps ≤ 0.0002); Persistence was not (p = .19). Demand Amplitude more than Persistence appears key to understanding individual differences in dependence severity. Regarding potential application, the results suggest a need for interventions that more effectively target demand Amplitude to make greater headway in reducing smoking in vulnerable populations. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT02232737, NCT02250664, NCT02250534.

A Review of the Literature on Remote Monitoring Technology in Incentive-Based Interventions for Health-Related Behavior Change.

Use of technology (e.g., Internet, cell phones) to allow remote implementation of incentives interventions for health-related behavior change is growing. To our knowledge, there has yet to be a systematic review of this literature reported. The present report provides a systematic review of the controlled studies where technology was used to remotely implement financial incentive interventions targeting substance use and other health behaviors published between 2004 and 2015. For inclusion in the review, studies had to use technology to remotely accomplish one of the following two aims alone or in combination: (a) monitor the target behavior, or (b) deliver incentives for achieving the target goal. Studies also had to examine financial incentives (e.g., cash, vouchers) for health-related behavior change, be published in peer-reviewed journals, and include a research design that allowed evaluation of the efficacy of the incentive intervention relative to another condition (e.g., non-contingent incentives, treatment as usual). Of the 39 reports that met inclusion criteria, 18 targeted substance use, 10 targeted medication adherence or home-based health monitoring, and 11 targeted diet, exercise, or weight loss. All 39 (100%) studies used technology to facilitate remote monitoring of the target behavior, and 26 (66.7%) studies also incorporated technology in the remote delivery of incentives. Statistically significant intervention effects were reported in 71% of studies reviewed. Overall, the results offer substantial support for the efficacy of remotely implemented incentive interventions for health-related behavior change, which have the potential to increase the cost-effectiveness and reach of this treatment approach.